Since some time.
In Roman Empire female homosexualism was strictly forbidden, due to some social things. Though ancient Greece was very liberal in sexual context (however in some period in Sparta men were encouraged to have sex with other men as "having sex with women was perceived dirty". And in ancient China was quite opposite - female homosexualism was better than heterosexalism or male homosexualism. Something connected with ying-yang, but I'm not good in Chinese culture and history.

In general, homosexualism in pagan culture was perceived positive or neutral. It was Christianity which changed minds, adding some mystic theories.

Actually, the most interesting difference between ancient Greece and Rome on the issue of homosexuality is that in ancient Greece, it was considered socially acceptable ONLY if it involved two people of the same [high] social class regardless of age differences, otherwise, it was illegal.

In Rome, it was the opposite - same-sex behavior was generally acceptable when it involved a slave, minor or low-class people, but for two adult aristocrats, it was illegal. Indeed, rather similar to 19th century England.

And in medieval Florence, same-sex behavior was technically legal and acceptable (and extremely widespread) but ONLY if it involved a minor. For two adults, it was a massively serious crime. Btw, statistics show that some 1/3 of all adult males in 15th century Florence were accused of taking part in such activity.

I do find it interesting the way such laws reveal so much about about a society. Now in our contemporary times we've reversed most of these - now we generally accept two adults and homosexuality but freak out when it involves a minor.

Actually, the most interesting difference between ancient Greece and Rome on the issue of homosexuality is that in ancient Greece, it was considered socially acceptable ONLY if it involved two people of the same [high] social class, otherwise, it was illegal.

In Rome, it was the opposite - same-sex behavior was generally acceptable when it involved a slave or low-class people, but for two adult aristocrats, it was illegal. Indeed, rather similar to 19th century England.

Yes, in Rome the main problem was some social thing. Someone, who was "lower" in social classes, had to be "passive".

It's interesting how social attitudes and public policies regarding human-interest issues (e.g., family value, sexuality, fertility-control, etc.) often lead to intimations about 'large-scale governance' and even authoritarian criticism.

Wasn't it Orwell who described how mass mobilization (caused by Industrialization) creates a motivated analysis of 'pseudo-fascism' temptations?

The human genome programs males to fertilize females for the purpose of reproduction and the generation of viable (i.e., heterosexual) offspring.

However, the human genome also codes for the human brain's ability to translate and store information regarding language and communication.

Are we claiming that when the genetically-programmed human male says, "I'm only attracted to females," he's ALWAYS telling the truth?

The advent of the genome-analytic Human Genome Project had critics and scientists alike talking about the prospect of 'shopping for desirable genes' in 'engineered pregnancies,' but it also had people talking about using molecular knowledge to devise innovative forms of treatment for disorders such as congenital heart disease.

What if using genetics as a 'defense/offense' for human-interest issues releases some kind of 'adversarial dragon' of contention?

====

GOD: Kids love outlandish comic book characters signifying great might.
SATAN: Serpentor (G.I. Joe) for example is a genetically-engineered 'tyrant.'
GOD: Intimations of ethics in the arena of strength/adaptation is complex.
SATAN: That's because evolution gears species (humans) towards doubt...
GOD: Doubt?
SATAN: Yes. To adapt to your environment, speculation is necessary!
GOD: Speculation can lead to great risks and dangers (e.g., racism).
SATAN: Wall Street stockbrokers do it all the time...
GOD: Capitalism does not grant a 'liberal license' for unfounded 'hunches.'
SATAN: Risk is a reality, and speculation is a 'phenotypic' response.
GOD: Speculation must be complemented with peer evaluation...
SATAN: That's why we have the Salk Institute, the NIH, and the Smithsonian.
GOD: Those are fine institutions, and they should encourage democratic IQ.
SATAN: There must be a way to differentiate between slavery and anarchy.